CHAPTER IV. COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. I. Naturalization by conquest. A. Allegiance of inhabitants of conquered state. B. Citizenship of inhabitants of conquered state. C. American ante-nati. II. Naturalization by treaty. A. In general. B. Power of United States to acquire territory by treaty and to prescribe terms upon which it will receive inhabitants. C. Treaties of cession to which the United States has been a party. a. In general. b. Treaty of 1794 with Great Britain. c. Treaty of 1803 with France. 1. Case of Egle Aubry. 2. Case of Foucher. 3. Case of De Baca. d. Treaty of 1819 with Spain. 1. Insular cases: Decision of Supreme Court. i. Treaties with Indians. III. Naturalization by special act of Congress. A. In general. B. On the acquisition of Oregon. C. On the annexation of Hawaii. D. Readmission of Nellie Grant Sartoris to citizenship. IV. Naturalization by admission of territory to statehood. A. In general. B. Louisiana. C. Northwest territory. 1. In general. 2. Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. 3. Michigan. D. Florida. E. Texas. F. Power of Congress over territories. G. Nebraska. COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. Besides naturalization of the individual alien by compliance with the formalities prescribed by the general naturalization law, citizenship may be conferred upon certain people in mass, or upon particular classes of persons. This method of naturalization is called collective naturalization. It may be effected by conquest, by treaty, by special Act of Congress, or by admission of new states. I. Naturalization by Conquest. A. Allegiance of Inhabitants of Conquered State. According to the general principles of the law of nations, every sovereign nation has, as an inherent attribute, the power to acquire territory by conquest. In the absence of stipulations on the subject, whenever a government acquires territory by conquest the relation of the conquered territory to the new government is to be determined by the conquering state. The Constitution [of the United States] confers absolutely on the government of the Union the powers of making war, and of making treaties; consequently that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty. Insular cases, 182 U. S. 300. The usage of the world is, if a nation be not entirely subdued, to consider the holding of conquered territory as a mere military occupation, until its fate shall be determined at the treaty of peace. If it be ceded by the treaty, the acquisition is confirmed, and the ceded territory becomes a part of the nation to which it is annexed; either on the terms stipulated in the treaty of cession, or on such as its new master shall impose. American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L. ed. 242; Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. 543. In Church of Jesus Christ of L. D. S. v. United States, 136 U. S. 1, 34 L. ed. 478, the Supreme Court declared: "The power to acquire territory . is derived from the treaty-making power and the power to declare and carry on war. The incidents of these powers are those of national sovereignty, and belong to all independent governments. The power to make acquisitions of territory by conquest, by treaty, and by cession is an incident of national sovereignty." Upon the conquest of a country the allegiance due by birth from its citizens or subjects to its sovereign passes, by operation of law, to the conqueror, who, as sovereign de facto, has a right to the allegiance of all who are subject to his power and submit to the protection of his arms. Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbour, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L. ed. 617; Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176. The nationality of the inhabitants of territory acquired by conquest or cession becomes that of the government under whose dominion they pass, subject to the right of election on their part to retain their former nationality by removal or otherwise, as may be provided. Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135. In the absence of express treaty stipulations or legislation by the conqueror, the relations between the conquered and the conqueror are determined by the law of nations, which establishes the general rule that the allegiance of the conquered is transferred to the new sovereign. 2 Halleck, International Law, 485. B. Citizenship of Inhabitants of Conquered State. The acquisition of territory by conquest by the United States does not operate to incorporate the inhabitants of the conquered territory as citizens of the conquering State. Insular Cases, 182 U. S. 300. The grounds upon which the court based its opinion are shown by the following quotation from the concurring opinion of Justices White, Shiras, and McKenna: "It is insisted, conceding the right of the government of the United States to acquire territory, as all such territory when acquired becomes absolutely incorporated into the United States, every provision of the Constitution which would apply under that situation is controlling in such acquired territory. This, however, is but to admit the power to acquire, and immediately to deny its beneficial existence. "The general principle of the law of nations, is that acquired territory, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, will bear such relation to the acquiring government as may be by it determined. To concede to the government of the United States the right to acquire, and to strip it of all power to protect the birthright of its own citizens and to provide for the well-being of the acquired territory by such enactments as may, in view of its condition, be essential, is, in effect, to say that the United States is helpless in the family of nations, and does not possess that authority which has at all times been treated as an incident of the right to acquire. Let me illustrate the accuracy of this statement. Take a case of discovery. Citizens of the United States discover an unknown island, peopled with an uncivilized race, yet rich in soil, and valuable to the United States for commercial and strategic reasons. Clearly, by the law of nations, the right to ratify such acquisition and thus to acquire the territory would pertain to the government of the United States. Johnson v. M'Intosh, 8 Wheat. 543, 595, 5 L. ed. 681, 694; Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, 409, 10 L. ed. 997, 1012; Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202, 212, 34 L. ed. 691, 695, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 80; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 50, 38 L. ed. 331, 349, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 548. Can it be denied that such right could not be practically exercised if the result would be to endow the inhabitants with citizenship of the United States and to subject them, not only to local, but also to an |